You haven't quite laid out your argument so I have to guess what it is.
When you say "That is not how HTTP works" it suggests that your claim is that anything that HTTP allows is ethically OK to do. However that is clearly a ridiculous stance, since a DDoS attack is a stream of valid HTTP requests and that's clearly not OK.
So I'm left wondering what your argument actually is for why unwelcome scraping is ethically OK.
I find this an interesting question, because while I would love for protcols to also define ethics, I feel that would be scope creep for the poor protocol designers. There's a wide variety of conduct and ethics questions that a protocol cannot address.
Where I myself draw the line is at protocol behavior intentionally designed to obscure my intentions. For example, sending my requests from a wide variety of IP addresses is behavior that is specifically designed to obscure where I'm coming from; my only intent in doing so would be to circumvent the intent of the serving machine from providing lots of content to a single requestor. At that point I'm engaging in deceptive behavior; I've crossed an ethical line.
When you say "That is not how HTTP works" it suggests that your claim is that anything that HTTP allows is ethically OK to do. However that is clearly a ridiculous stance, since a DDoS attack is a stream of valid HTTP requests and that's clearly not OK.
That wasn't a response made to your comment, and you are mixing two different arguments there. You guess in not correct.
So I'm left wondering what your argument actually is for why unwelcome scraping is ethically OK.
I never even suggested such an argument.
The behavior you described in the last paragraph is only deceptive from the eyes of an information and privacy surveillant state actor.
Anonymity is not unethical, it is a human right.
